LexRANJIT SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013) 13 S.C.R. 633 ~ RANJIT SINGH A v. STATE OF PUNJAB (Criminal Appeal No. 1853 of 2009) JULY 4, 2013 B · [T.S. THAKUR AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] )( Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302 and 307 rlw 149 - Murder - Attempt to murder - Unlawful assembly - Common object - Mob comprising several persons allegedly armed with guns c and sharp-edged weapons started firing and also launched assault - Two persons died - Held: Prosecution story as narrated by PWs12 and 13 clearly implicated appellant 'B' and proved that he had fired from his gun - That deceased was .l hit by a shot fired from the gun by 'B', corroborated not only D ... from ocular testimony of the witnesses but also by forensic evidence of the Ballistics Expert and seizures from the spot - 'B' rightly convicted by the Courts below and sentenced to imprisonment for life.- But prosecution failed to prove that five other appellants i.e. 'M: 'G', 'A', 'J' and 'R' were armed with guns E when they came to the place of occurrence - Reasoning of the trial Court that the said five appellants were not carrying ~. guns but carrying arms which they used to cause sharp edged and blunt injuries to the deceased, not sustainable - All that prosecution evidence may prove is that the said five F appellants were also present on the spot - But, being present on the spot, by itself may not in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case be enough to implicate them u/ s. 149 f PC - Commission of an overt act, is not an essential ingredient for attracting s. 149 /PC but given the exaggerations G and embellishments in the prosecution story, the said five appellants cannot be held guilty of murder with the help of s.149 !PC or even in regard to offence uls.307 rlw s.149 !PC also - Arms Act - s.27. 633 H 634 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 13 S.C.R. A The prosecution case was that a mob comprising several persons armed with guns and sharp-edged weapons like Gandasi, Kirpan and dangs came and started firing at the complainant party and also assaulted them. It was alleged that the assailants came to the spot B to dispossess the complainant party from the land in their cultivating occupation and to prevent them by criminal force from harvesting the wheat crop that the later had grown in the same. Two persons from the complainant side, Amrik Singh and his son Vikramjit Singh, died C because of firearm injuries. Shavinderjit Singh, another son of Amrik Singh and nephew of informant (PW11 - Ranjit Singh), received a gunshot injury. Thirty one persons were arrayed as accused, of which one was acquitted while twenty one persons were D convicted under Section 148 IPC for the offence of rioting. As regards the remaining nine accused, the trial Court convicted eight who were alleged to be armed with firearms under .sections 302 and 307 and the provisions of Arms Act sentencing them to life imprisonment for E murder and imprisonment for a period of ten years for attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC. The ninth accused viz. Harbans Kaur wife of Mohinder Singh was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. F In the cross case registered on basis of the statement of Mohinder Singh, the trial Court held that even when the disputed plot of land was in possession of the accused in the cross case (Complainant party in the main case), yet they were not justified in using G firearms to cause injuries to the opposite party. The trial Court accordingly convicted Shavinderjit Singh under Section 307 IPC, while Ramandeep Singh was found guilty under Section 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC. Zora Singh who was added as an accused under Section H - RANJIT SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 635 319 of the Cr.P.C. was convicted under Section 148 IPC A while Ranjit Singh was given benefit of doubt and acquitted. Both parties appealed to the High Court. By that time, Binder Singh, one of the nine convicts (from the accused 8 side in the main case), had passed away. Insofar as the conviction and sentence of six other convicts, Amrik Singh, Rajinder Singh and Jaswinder Singh, Makhan Singh, Gurdial Singh and Balwinder Singh are concerned, the High Court held, the charges framed against them to C have been proved and accordingly affirmed the order of conviction passed by the trial Court. The appeals filed by the remaining two convicts Mohinder Singh and Harbans Kaur were allowed and they
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.